From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harwitz v. Cohen

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Nov 10, 1930
138 Misc. 300 (N.Y. App. Term 1930)

Opinion

November 10, 1930.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District.

Abraham Eisenstat, for the appellant.

George S. Fishman, for the respondents.


The failure upon the termination of the trial to follow established procedure as to the form of judgment to be entered does not warrant an order made more than two months after the entry of the amended judgment herein vacating the judgment and amended judgment, it appearing that the real object in moving for the order was merely to procure an adjudication for costs. ( Rosebrock Butter Egg Co., Inc., v. Jorisch, 157 N.Y.S. 234.)

Judgments and order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, LYDON, LEVY and CALLAHAN, JJ.


Summaries of

Harwitz v. Cohen

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Nov 10, 1930
138 Misc. 300 (N.Y. App. Term 1930)
Case details for

Harwitz v. Cohen

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL E. HARWITZ, Appellant, v. SARAH COHEN and Others, Respondents

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Nov 10, 1930

Citations

138 Misc. 300 (N.Y. App. Term 1930)
245 N.Y.S. 350